2008 Presidential contender mojo ratings: June 6, 2007 edition

After three Reep and two Dem debates, its time again to rate the contenders.

Democrats:

Barack Obama 6.6
Hillary Clinton 6.1

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup polling, Hillary and Barack are in a dead-heat. However, the mojo is clearly with Barack.

John Edwards 3.2

I don't see how Edwards is going to close the gap. The right-wing slime machine has jumped all over Edwards (the big house, the haircut, etc), forcing him into playing some defense - and that's always deadly in a political race. The good news for Edwards is there is still a lot of time for him to rebound.

Bill Richardson 0.9

Two chances to elevate himself into the top tier, but didn't do it. He's campaigning for a another cabinet position. Again, there is still time, but the clock is ticking loudly.

Dennis Kucinich 0.8

The darling of many liberals, and understandably so. However, he suffers from something similar that afflicted Howard Dean - his demeanor. It isn't the lack of gravitas, its not even his height or anything like that. I'm having trouble putting my finger on it exactly. Dean was kind of irritating to watch in debate, Kucinch isn't irritating. Maybe its the sense that a Kucinch presidency wouldn't get anything done because he's too idealistic to actually compromise. Maybe its the realization he isn't really trying to win.

Mike Gravel 0.7

Strong on Iraq, but has no base, no way, no shot, no how, never.

Joe Biden 0.4

One word - why? I just don't get the Biden bid at all. Joe, you want secretary of defense in the next administration, you got it. Now, shut up and go away.

Chris Dodd 0.2

His bid is meaningless. I know he's ticked about not getting enough air time in the debate, but no one really cares.

Wild Card - Al Gore 4.9

There's the Tennessee Two that aren't in the race - at least not yet. Tennessee Thompson is all but in, but Big Al Gore is playing coy. Maybe he's in, maybe not. The intrigue is interesting and attractive (what do you mean you might not want to be president?) The difference to me between Al and Fred is that Gore can still manage a big pop if he enters, whereas Fred Dalton (I believe) is at his apex.

I think a Clinton-Obama-Gore-Edwards tussle would be a dream for the dems. I'd like Richardson to still be in the mix due to his resume. Kick the rest out, and let these five barnstorm the country in debate of the issues.


Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani 5.2

Rudy G. continues to hold a strong double digit lead over McCain and Romney. However, he generally tops out around 33% in the polls (McCain and Romney are in the high teens and low teens, respectively). My question is - where does Rudy pick up support when other contenders drop out? Rudy is so far to the left of the other candidates on most social issues, its like he's in another room altogether. The base is getting antsy in a big way over Rudy. I just don't see much more upside for him.

John McCain 3.6

Dead man walking. Disses BushCo when BushCo was at the height of popularity, and latches onto BushCo's butt cheeks as BushCo is circling the toilet. McCain is not only married to BushCo, but to Iraq and the immigration bill. Now, he's cussing a lot. Cue Don Merideth, The party's over.

Mitt Romney 3.1

It would interesting if Romney and Edwards both won the nomination. The could have a coiffe-off debate - winner gets to give a haircut to the loser. Romney is telegenic and bright and has a strong resume (except for foreign policy expertise).

Mike Huckabee 0.9

Mike has a folksy down-to-Earth demeanor that might elevate him past the top three (or four or five (more on Tennessee Jed, er Fred and Newt below). The base is clamoring for something different - a second coming of Dubya without the baggage and hubris. Huckabee could fit the bill.

Ron Paul 0.9

Vive la difference! One has to like Paul because he sets himself so far apart from the rest of the pack. Unfortunately, he suffers from a similar problem that befuddles Kucinch - its that electability thing. Its hard to finger, but there it is. Paul has no hope, we know and he knows it.

Sam Brownback 0.4

Brownback proves true why Senators should not run for president. I believe he's been lapped by Huckabee in the race to vault from second tier to first tier.

Duncan Hunter 0.3

Hunter has no chance and he knows it. The question remains: What is driving this guy. Ego?

Jim Gilmore 0.2

This guy is not impressive. The Reeps would be well-serve to eliminate Gilmore from future debates, if only to give the other candidates some more time.

Tom Tancredo 0.2

Its just too hard to out-hate your opponents in a Republican battle for president. Tancredo is not quite ready for prime-time.

Tommy Thompson 0.1

Simply terrible. He's had three debate opportunities and hasn't shown presidential timber. This guy is meat.

Wild Card - Fred Thompson 3.5

Fred will enter the race slightly ahead of Mitt Romney. He adds some flair to the race, as I expect him to be strong in debate due to his long acting career (I don't mean that in a cynical way; its just that he's had lots of opportunity to hone his speaking skills.) Thompson will run as a limited government Reaganite, a pretty good place to land. He has some potential upside - maybe a lot of upside. We just won't know until until after a few debates and policy speeches as an official candidate.

Wild Card - Newt Gingrich 2.8

Newt may join the race, or maybe he won't. Newt claims he wants to elevate the debate. That's all fine, but Gingrich carries some heavy political baggage. His recent row with Tom DeLay certainly doesn't tag Gingrich as the great uniter of the party. I would be interested to have Gingrich on the stage with six other Reeps - Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Fred Thompson, Huckabee and Paul (I only add Paul because he brings such a different point of view than all of the other candidates). That might be a bit crowded.

Revolt's Crystal Ball - Looking to January 1, 2008

I anticipate some candidates dropping out due to a combination of fatigue, realization they can't win, lack of funds and being excluded from debates. By the end of the year, the top three dems will still be in. Kucinich is in because he's running on issues, not to win. I would love to see Al Gore enter the race, if only to energize the debates.

On the Reep side, things are more complicated. Giuliani will be in for a long time because he can compete in the big states. I think either McCain or Romney drops out. From there it gets messy. Does Gingrich stay in all the way to the convention with his five to ten percent support? Can the minor candidates stick around? Will Fred Thompson blast off like a rocket. My crystal ball says that Giuliani, Romney, Fred Thompson, Newt, Huckabee, Paul and Tancredo are still standing January 1st, and the rest are with the dead armadillos.

Mitt Romney Can't Keep Track of Right Wing Zealots

Its tough to run for Prez, you have to remember all sorts of folks, but this was pretty embarrassing. From AJC:

At the fund-raiser for Mitt Romney at the posh 1818 Club on Friday, the candidate was making the introductions to the room.

Romney gestured to Ralph Reed and said, “Why it’s good to see Gary Bauer here.” (For the detached, Bauer is a former presidential candidate with ties, like Reed, to the Religious Right.)

Romney then caught himself. “Oh, I’m a little mixed up here,” he said. But Romney still couldn’t place Reed’s face — and had to move on.

D'oh! So, let's give the Mittster a helping hand.

Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition (Pat Roberston's group), vote rigger, high-school plagiarizer, and chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. He had a meteoric rise in the Republican Party as a champion of the religious right, and even ran for Lt. Governor of Georgia. His future looked bright, until his dealings with Jack Abramoff came to light.

Reed was named in the scandal arising from lobbying work performed by Jack Abramoff on behalf of Indian gambling tribes. Emails released by federal investigators in June 2005 suggest that Reed secretly accepted payments from Abramoff to lobby against Indian casino gambling and oppose an Alabama education lottery while Abramoff was being paid to promote Indian casino gambling. Additional emails released in November 2005 show that Reed also worked for another Abramoff client seeking to block a congressional ban on Internet gambling. These cases are being investigated by multiple federal and state grand juries and by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Abramoff pled guilty to three felony counts in federal court.

He lost the election and is just another disgraced ex-pol. At least he didn't stick his dick where it didn't belong, so who knows? Could a resurrection be in the cards for Ralph Reed?

Gary Bauer is another right wing religious zealot, probably best known for falling of the stage trying to catch pancakes while running for the presidency. (Does chutzpah know no bounds?) Gary, as expected, is anti-woman's choice, but is pro-death penalty. He had some bizarre run-ins with Dan (Santorum, ITMFA) Savage. Bauer has joined the ranks of right wing ranters by hosting a radio talk show program.

Republican Debate Part Deux

Here's what others are saying:

Political Realm declares McCain the big winner of last night's debate. PR also gives a thumbs up to Giuliani, but questions Romney's performance. Of the lesser candidates, Tancredo and Huckabee had strong performances.

Blog For Brains gives the nod to Ron Paul. Paul had the temerity to say that US meddling the Middle East created blow-back that helped cause 9-11. B4B went on to lament the lockstep "consistent conservatism" espoused by the other candidates.

All Spin Zone hits on one hypothetical question asked of the candidates - namely, what they would do under a hypothetical where three terrorists bombings had already occurred, and how far they would go to avoid a fourth. On that question, ASZ gives it to McCain for taking a principled stand, while ripping Rudy's response.

TomCat tallies how many of the questions were answered and how many were ducked. The results:

Candidate Answered/Ducked

Brownback 3/2
Gilmore 3/3
Giuliani 4/3
Huckabee 6/0
McCain 4/4
Paul 4/1
Romney 3/4
Tancredo 2/3
Thompson 2/2

TomCat's take is similar to Blog4Brains - Paul stood out and the other candidates all stood together.

Taegan Goddard declares the debate feisty, noting in particular exchanges between Paul and Giuliani and between McCain and Romney. He offers some quotes from the State and NYT.

RCP gives the right wing view of the world.

Rich Lowry blogging on NRO's The Corner gives it to Rudy. Of course, Rich just loved, loved, loved the red-meat Hillary-bashing.

Funky Town Fighter calls the candidates a bunch of candy-assed hypocrites. Okay, she didn't actually write that, but I really hope she does one of the rants that only FTF can do on the debate.

Drudge and HuffPost have nothing - at least not that I could easily find.

Edit: I found an additional post on the debate, and taking nothing from the above the blogs, Monkey Muck has THE best take. I won't spoil it, just give the link a click and enjoy!

Edit Part Deux: Chuq gives to Paul and Romney. Of the top runners, he had Giuliani and McCain even.

This Just In: Obama Still Black

The Washington Post has a rather lengthy article on Obama and race and the race for the presidency.

In separate interviews, 10 white supporters who attended the Tampa fundraising rally talked about their perceptions of the dicey realm of race and its impact on Obama's electability. Though they admire his character, achievements, charisma and political philosophy, many expressed fear that racial prejudice might stymie his campaign.

Okay, that's an interesting topic. The article goes on with this finding that makes me somewhat optimistic on race relations in this country:

Once, polls in races between a white and black candidate were wildly unreliable. White voters have had a history of telling pollsters they will vote along their party lines when faced with a black candidate; then, in the privacy of the booth, they cross party lines to vote for the white candidate.

...

[T]he phenomenon seems to be fading, according to a Pew Research Center paper, "Can You Trust What Polls Say About Obama's Electoral Prospects?"

In 2006, when white Republican Bob Corker beat black Democrat Harold Ford Jr. to represent Tennessee in the Senate, Corker's lead was overstated in the polls. Whites voted for Ford in largely the numbers they had told pollsters they would.

Mystery Pollster picks up a recent survey conducted by Quinnipiac University:

[B]elieve it or not, not all Americans know that Obama is black. Here is the result released just last Friday from a national sample of adults surveyed by Quinnipiac University (Q33):

What race do you consider Barack Obama?

2% White
45% Black
0% Asian
7% Mixed/other
9% Mixed Black and White
37% Don't know

Aside from the mixed up mixed race responses (the question was open-ended), the news is in. Barack Obama is sill Black.

Quinnipiac Poll here

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Republican Debate Night

Tonight's the night for the reeps. Is it me, or has this debate gotten far less publicity than the recent dem debate? I went to Drudge, and he's more keyed up that Time took Dubya off its list of the 100 most influential Americans.

Over at NRO's the Corner, the talk is more of Romney's hair than the debate.

Romney said, as he has before, that he pays $50 for a hair cut including the tip. Then he quipped: "You know I think John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. There is the America where people pay $400 for a haircut and then there is everybody else."

The closest Glenn Reynolds comes to tonight's debate is this:

NOT RUNNING LOOKS LIKE A GOOD STRATEGY, as Fred Thompson moves up in the polls. His support seems to be coming out of Rudy Giuliani's hide.

The only big blog I found that covers the debate is HuffPost - and all they do is link to a NYT article. (Upshot: The candidates don't know what do with Dubya. My suggestion: Sell.)

Political Realm has lots of excellent coverage of the candidates. PR has a profile of Tom Tancredo up today.

The latest NBC/WSJ poll has Guiliani out in front (33%), McCain (22%), Fred Thompson (17%), Romney (12%), Huckabee (2%), and others at 1% or less.

Pew has mostly similar results, except Newt is included at 9%, ahead of Romney but behind Fred Thompson. Polling Report has the details.

Finally, today's debate in Los Angeles doesn't even rate front web page coverage on the LA Times. There are articles on how the reeps are nervously shifting their stance on Iraq (we support benchmarks!), and on Fred Thompson presumably jumping into the fray.

Oh well. I look forward to the post-debate analysis.

Fox News: Dumbing Down the Bias

We all know the allegations - Fox News is biased towards the right, and dumbs down the news. Are these allegations correct? Certainly the democratic candidates for president thought so when they snubbed Fox News for their first debate. And we all know that Dick Cheney appears almost exclusively on Fox (except when he's rolling Tim Russert, but I digress).

Let's take a look a what researchers and others have found. First, World Public Opinion completed a year-long analysis of news sources. Their key finding:

[T]he frequency of [Iraq War] misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions [about the Iraq War], while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

This comes on the heels of a recent Pew Center poll showing that Fox News viewers are among the least informed on current events.

In addition, researchers Ethan Kaplan and Stefano DellaVigna analyzed the question of Fox News bias by looking at the impact of Fox News on voting patterns. From the National Bureau of Economic Research:

[Kaplan and Della Vigna] found that the introduction of Fox News had a small but statistically significant effect on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained an estimate of between 0.4 and 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News. They also find that Fox News had a significant effect on Senate vote share and on voter turnout. Their estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its viewers to vote Republican according to a first audience measure, and 11 to 28 percent according to a second, more restrictive audience measure.

Here's some other info on the Fox New Bias:

• Media Matters reviews a series of internal Fox memos.
• A documentary on Fox News - Outfoxed.
• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting covers Brit Hume (from the way back machine - pre 9/11).
• Journalists have found Fox News to be, far and away, the most conservative news source.
• The public outing of terrorist who, unfortunately, wasn't really a terrorist.
• Osama, oops I meant Obama, attended a Madrassa, as reported by Fox. Nice.

If you are a Republican, what has you most worried?

Is it:

A. Dubya's wacko speech about polls that go poof, chicken plucking and rug remembering?

B. Daily congressional FBI raids

C. Gonzo's grilling

D. Iraq: FUBAR within Enigma

E. BushCo pissing off seniors by threatening a veto over prescription drug plan

F. Wolfowitz on the hot seat

G. No heir-in-waiting for POTUS nomination

H. Emailgate

John McCain is insane in the membrain

Johnny Mac was in South Carolina yesterday. From Drudge:

At the campaign rally, McCain was asked if an attack on Iran is in the works, the GEORGETOWN TIMES reports.

McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular BEACH BOYS song.

“Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann.

I guess this is the kind of rhetoric (lyric?) that one needs to get reep primary votes in the South. OTOH, this is completely demented. I really think that McCain is losing it.

John McCain: A soft touch down back to reality

Johnnie "do the stroll" McCain returned late this week from the alternative universe where Iraqis shower Americans with candy and flowers. The New York Times covers the flip-floppery on-line:

After a week of public pummeling, Mr. McCain, one of the Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination, now says he misspoke about the situation on the ground in Baghdad. In an interview to be broadcast on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Mr. McCain said he wished he had been more measured in his remarks.

“Of course I am going to misspeak and I’ve done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do it in the future,” he told CBS correspondent Scott Pelley. “I regret that when I divert attention to something I said from my message but you know, that’s just life.”

I, along with thousands of bloggers and those Iraqi merchants (who were described as "astonished" when appraised of Johnnie Mac's initial sunny comments) gave McCain the business over the stupidity of those remarks. McCain took the heat especially heavily because he is a top tier presidential candidate, but moreso because he's the self-proclaimed straight talk express.

That sure was some straight talk, eh? Johnnie Mac's initial comments were right out of a Dick Cheney speech - That's just how Looney Tunes he sounded. So, it was a great deal of relief I read McCain's new comments. I may not particularly like McCain, but I do greatly prefer that top tier presidential candidates be of sound minds.

He certainly does now sound grounded. Oh, of course he hasn't budged one inch on his stance to the war. But, at least he has left Limbaughland and returned to the reality-based community (or some far flung burg - somewhere in the galaxy).

Where ever McCain turns these days, things turn into gooey dog turds. Its like the Midas Touch, only reversed. Call it the Dubya Touch. Think of any important issue over the past two and half years. If Dubya is for it, campaigns for, uses his bully pulpit, then public support craters. Now McCain has the Dubya Touch - in spades.

This Dubya Touch effect is purely McCain's own doing. He decided a long time ago that he was going to run between Dubya's butt cheeks. I always thought it was an insane strategy given his history with Dubya, but McCain's pollsters probably told him Dubya was popular within the Republican Party.

The Straight-Talk Express is now the Flip-Flopping Train That Couldn't. Republicans hate McCain. Dems have grown to hate him, and I would be willing to bet that Independents are at best scratching their heads.

Let's see if Johnnie Mac' new Phoenix Rising campaign strategy is going to work. It did for Kerry in 2004, but that was a far different situation. Right now, the McCain campaign is on life support. He doesn't seem like such a top-tier candidate anaymore.

Duncan Hunter plays to his base: Blackwater

Yesterday, I wrote about how Tom Tancredo is working to wrap up the Dog Chapman vote. Today, we learn that Duncan Hunter is playing to the mercenary crowd. Raw Story covers the story where Blackwater wants to turn a chicken farm into a mercenary training camp for Blackwater. They report former California congressman and current presidential candidate Duncan Hunter is a client of Blackwater. They also raise questions about whether Hunter was lobbying for the project.

So, that got me to thinking about Duncan Hunter. Who is he? What does he stand for? Here's a recent clarifying editorial from Michael Reagan (Ronnie's son, the conservative one):

Rep. Duncan Hunter, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and now its ranking Republican member, appeared on the Hannity and Colmes show on Fox, and I was astonished to hear him castigated for failing to see that our troops in Iraq needed equipment[,] ... specifically ... on [the] matter of the alleged lack of body armor for our troops in Iraq[.]

Ignored were certain inconvenient facts such as the amount of body armor that was available under Bill Clinton, which was zero. Today ... thanks to Duncan Hunter's work ... the armed services have one million sets of body armor. That's one million!

Wow! Duncan Hunter supports the troops! Iraq equipment shortages must be blamed on Bill Clinton. Okay, check.

Chris Reed is a conservative op/ed-er San Diego U-T. He must be a huge Hunter fan, having gotten to view him close up over a long time, particularly as Reed gives Hunter the honorific of NOT being a Reagan Republican (in case anyone missed it, reeps have no interest in being Reagan Republicans anymore - well, except maybe the folks on Fox and Friends, but I digress):

Periodically, I get e-mails from supporters of the presidential candidacy of Alpine Rep. Duncan Hunter who express disbelief, befuddlement or fury, or a mix of all three, at my flat contention that he is a populist demagogue and anything but a principled conservative. These folks cannot fathom any talk that he's not free-trade, small-government Ronald Reagan reincarnated.

Okay, Hunter is not Ronald Reagan Reincarnated. Check.

Here's a synopsis of Hunter on Iraq (from Congressopedia):

On November 18, 2005, in response to Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's resolution to terminate the deployment of United States forces in Iraq, to redeploy the forces already involved in Iraq, and to "pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy",Hunter and other Republicans drafted a two-sentence counter-resolution which read:

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

"Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

Democrats condemned the bill as a political stunt. As expected, it was soundly defeated, 403-3, in the House of Representatives.

Okay, Hunter is simultaneously pro-blood bath, but wants our troops home now. That's presidential timber; Oh, yeah!

What else. Hunter hates illegal immigrants. Hates the Chinese government. Runs strongly on the Three G's platform (Guns, God and Gays).

On the other hand, Hunter batted oh for 19 on the Jeff Flake amendments to stop earmarking. However, when he was a congressman, Hunter did at least make his earmark requests public. From the Sunlight Foundation:

Hunter has decided that [earmark] transparency is necessary to defend the practice. Transparency also allows me to point out that two of his earmarks are to one of his biggest campaign donors, Titan, Inc. For more information Hunter's ties to Titan -- a very controversial defense contractor -- check out this blog post by Jason Vest at POGO.

So, that's it on Hunter, the dream candidate of military contractors and mercs. Which brings me back to Tancredo and his support for Dog Chapman. Bounty hunters and mercenaries. Seems like a similar demographic. Could Tancredo be a stalking horse for Hunter? Or the other way around? Will either candidate top 1% in any Republican Primary?

Tom Tancredo for President?

So, Tom Tancredo is running for president. Apparently, the winds of anti-immigrant hysteria aren't blowing quite hard enough in the Republican Party.

Here is Tom's own top presser:

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking her to clarify whether the U.S. has a legal obligation to extradite bounty hunters like Duane “Dog” Chapman to Mexico based on an agreement that could just amount to “a wink and a nod” between governments.

That probably sums up Tom's base: Dog Chapman. Tancredo is looking to become 2008's Alan Keyes (though Keyes is probably smarter).

Do we want to start on the Tom and the immigration issue first thing this morning? No. I didn't think so. Its there; dude is a nutjob. I'll bet Michael Savage is about to endorse him.

What about Ron Paul?

I received some comments about not including Ron Paul in my presidential candidate mojo rankings. Fair point; let's take a closer look at U.S. Congressman Paul. Here's a self-description from his website:

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.

He served in congress in the 70s and 80s, went back to his doctor's practice a while and returned to congress in 1997 representing the Galveston, Texas area. Dr. Paul represents the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, although he is firmly pro-life (Its worth noting that Libertarian Party members are conflicted on the issue of abortion). Dr. Paul voted against the Patriot Act - both times, and is firmly against the war in Iraq.

A review of recent speech in New Hampshire had this:

[Dr. Paul] noted that some people had accused him of not being a “strong leader,” but he rebutted that accusation: “Sometimes being a strong leader means resisting the temptation to use power.” During his time spent in Congress, Paul has consistently resisted the temptation to use power.

That certainly is in keeping with libertarian principles. Now for my mea culpa as to why I didn't include Paul in my presidential candidate mojo rankings list - I thought Paul was running as a Libertarian. I now realize that Paul is running as a (small-l) libertarian Republican. There's really a world of difference between being the libertarian candidate and a republican candidate - even a minor republican candidate.

Paul occupies an interesting space - one shared with, I believe Chuck Hagel (oh great, I also forgot to include Hagel on the mojo list). Many conservatives are fed up with the anti-libertarian elements of the Republican Party, including those who would curtail individual freedoms through the Patriot Act and foreign entanglements like the Iraq War.

Hagel is seemingly despised by many party faithful. However, there seems to be more enthusiasm for the Paul candidacy than for Hagel. Maybe its because Hagel is regularly on Meet the Press and Paul isn't. Maybe its because there are other issues which Paul is perceived to be strong on, and Hagel isn't.

Recent polls have Paul either off the charts or down at the bottom. A recent CNN poll of republican voters gave Paul 2%. Hagel polled the same level.

Its early, but Paul is at least positioned apart from the rest of the republicans, and could gain traction if more Patriot Act abuses are uncovered, Iraq continues to festers, and republican voters decide they want more dramatic change at the top.

Mojor Rankings:

Paul 1.0
Hagel 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much credit for this article goes to the Big Soccer Politics and Current Events forum, and more specifically the thread on Ron Paul. See here.

2008 Presidential contender mojo ratings: March 20, 2007 edition

Ratings on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being Dubya's popularity among the San Francisco anti-war set, and 10 being the Baby Jesus. At this early early stage, no one is running away with things just yet.

Democrats:

Barak Obama: 6.2. There's a gut feeling here the Hillary 1984 video was done by some Obama crony. If so, these kinds of dirty tricks won't get the idealists excited. There's some worry if this guy really has the chops for this. We really won't know until after a couple of major debates. For now, Obama is the clear front runner.

Hillary Clinton: 5.2. I just don't see Hillary-mania building. She's started making some right noises on Iraq, but its just not enough for the anti-war democratic majority.

Al Gore: 3.6. Al really has a chance to zoom into the race in a big way, but I think he's really smart to not jump in too soon. He has the resume, he has the issue. Can he muster the fire in the belly?

John Edwards: 3.5. Edwards is hanging in there. He's a serious candidate, but its just too early for him to take off - particularly with Obama sucking all the oxygen out.

Bill Richardson: 1.2. May have a chance if he can stay in until the debates.

Dennis Kucinch: 1.0. Kucinich simply isn't a candidate we can take very seriously. However, he has been ardently anti-war, and might just garner some more attention the second time around.

Chris Dodd: 0.5. One question: Why?

Joe Biden: 0.1. Not only is he daft, but his hair is worse than The Donald's. Biden's run is purely ego pump.


Republicans

Rudy Giuliani: 6.4. Rudy has that mojo working. I really can't understand why, but I'll probably never figure out republican thinking. I have to believe this is his high-water mark, but who know? Maybe the anti-McCain clan will gravitate here.

John McCain: 4.9. The straight-talk express is running right off the road. Where in the world did Johnny Mac get the idea he needed to be Bush III and more pro-war than Dick Cheney? Its really a sad sight watching McCain implode for all to see.

Fred Thompson: 3.7. Coming out of nowhere, Thompson is quickly filling the void of the top GOP contenders. Conservatives are salivating over the prospect of Thompson becoming the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Its too early to tell if Thompson has the right stuff.

Mitt Romney: 3.2. Good-looking, charismatic, former governor. He has a lot going for him. He is plagued by his past, and his religion will be a hindrance. Mitt has been sliding backwards for a couple of months now.

Newt Gingrich: 2.6. Newt is trying to become the patriarch of the Republican party with high set of big ideas. Personally, I think Newt has a hard ceiling - even within the republican party. Even Tom DeLay hates his guts.

Mike Huckabee: 1.3. Huckabee hasn't caught on as serious contender, yet. But its early. Plus, he has the benefit of low expectations, and has nowhere to go - but up.

San Brownback: 0.7. If Brownback can get his message out, he may have a chance to compete. For now though, there are too many candidates in his way.

Tom Tancredo: 0.2. Railing against illegal immigrants only gets you so far as a presidential candidate. Even for a Republican.

Mitt Romney: El Gringo Stupido!

File this under, what the hell was he thinking about? From the Miami Herald:

Cubans in Miami are steaming mad at former Gov. Mitt Romney for shooting his mouth off in stumbling Spanish, mispronouncing names and erroneously associating a notorious Fidel Castro-spewed Communist catch phrase with freedom fighters.

Politicians in South Florida have lashed out at the former Massachusetts governor and 2008 presidential hopeful for describing the socialist saying “Patria o muerte, venceremos” as “inspiring” and for claimingthe phrase was swiped from liberty-seeking Cubans by leftist admirers of Castro.

The phrase, which means “Fatherland or death, we shall overcome,” was bellowed as a political speech sign-off by the dictator for decades.

At another point in the speech to the Miami-Dade Republican Party, Romney bungled the names of prominent Cuban GOP politicians, referring to Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio as “Mario.”

Romney also garnered criticism for his hard-line stance on immigration and ending the talk with the phrase “Libertad, Libertad, Libertad,” a revolutionary saying made famous in the gangster movie “Scarface,” which many Cubans feel plays on cultural stereotypes.

But it was the former Bay State governor’s use of an infamous Fidel Castro line that sparked the most controversy.

So, what was Romney thinking about? He was trying to play Panda Bear to the nuthead Cubans in South Florida. The upshot: Romney probably lost the Cuban vote. Too bad.

Newt comes clean (after all these years)

As you probably know, Newt Gingrich finally came clean that he was cheating on his second wife during the Clinton impeachment. Nice guy sure, but no surprise whatsoever. This is the guy who served his first wife her divorce papers while she was in the hospital.

Here's Newt with Russert recently:

MR. RUSSERT: But do you, do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.

Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.

The Newtster does make an interesting point - and Clinton DID look at the camera and said I never diddled that woman with a cigar. A lie under oath - and to the American people - is certainly serious business, and people are right to criticize.

That said, three important points:

1. Clinton's behavior didn't hurt anyone, outside of his family.

2. This same standard should be applied to the Bush administration, particularly Dick Cheney, and the rationale used for the run-up to the war, and long after. For Dubya, I tend to give him a break; he's an empty suit and only recites what others tell him to say.

3. I've heard ONE conservative commentator* say that Libby got what he deserved. The double standard here is incredible. The dems are no better on this score, so I'm not defending the dem position. What I am saying is this: the reeps are beyond outrageous. Its this attitude that led to their defeat in 2006, and for the reeps taking the mantle as the party of whackos and misfits.




*David Brooks on the News Hour last night said Libby deserved his punishment. He then went on to say that despite Libby's lies and obstructions, his intent was only to correct Joe Wilson's lies. LOL.

Can Giuliani re-tool the republican majority?

A number of conservative writers think that Giuliani can become the next Reagan, that is re-tool and expand the "big tent" to ensure reep wins in the future.

Daniel Casse in CommentaryMagazine.com makes the case:

[T]his conservative crack-up might ... be an opportunity for the next Republican presidential nominee. Reagan’s greatest strength in the late 1970’s was to free the party from a narrow coalition of business interests, Nixonian cultural conservatives, and country-club types. Realignment meant not just redrawing the political map, but remaking the base of the party, attracting a confederation of conservatives who had never really identified with the Republican party.

Because he does not fit neatly into any Republican box, Giuliani seems uniquely suited to take on the task of realignment—and break the red/blue split that forces the GOP to place all its bets on 100,000 votes in Ohio.

So does Noemie Emery who explains the problem (quoted below) and reasons why Rudy may be the solution:

Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.

There's a lot of back and forth on the National Review's Corner on this topic. As one who has despised the Bush administration first and foremost for propping the Shrub up as the Great Divider, this is great news coming from the reeps.

Consider the debate within reep circles about the fate of the party and the country after 9-11, and moving through to the 2006 mid-term elections....

Oh wait, there was no debate. The reeps engaged in a huge circle jerk with everyone pointed at their lord and master - the Shrub (aka Karl Rove). Their victories were short-lived, and many reeps lost their way - big time.

I believe enough reeps now "get it." A debate about the future of the party is well underway. Where the party ends up - who knows? But at least the discussion and debate is on.

All Americans are all the richer for it.

Romney's Campaign Strategy Leaked

I've long considered Romney to be dead-meat politically. His Mormonism just won't fly with too many So-Cons, and his flip-floppery will be used against him in a big way.

That's one thing. But, Romney's advisors put together a memo on Romney's perceived weaknesses - and someone went and leaked the info to the Boston Globe. D'oh!

The 77-slide PowerPoint presentation offers a revealing look at Romney's pursuit of the White House, outlining a plan for branding himself, framing his competitors, and allaying voter concerns about his record, his Mormon faith, and his shifts on key issues like abortion.
Dated Dec. 11, the blueprint is wide-ranging and analyzes in detail the strengths and weaknesses of Romney and his two main Republican rivals, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York. The plan, which top Romney strategist Alex Castellanos helped to draft, charts a course for Romney to emerge as the nominee, but acknowledges that the "electorate is not where it needs to be for us to succeed."

Some thoughts on the 2008 Presidential race

To me, the most interesting part of the race for 2008 is the Reeps do NOT have a pre-ordained candidate for the party to rally around. Not since the bitter Ford-Reagan run in 1976 has this been the case. Sure, there have been challengers along the way - Bush I in '80, Buchanan, the leg-pressing preacher - but these were all outsiders.

Here's the list of pre-ordained Reeps:

'80 - Reagan
'84 - Reagan
'88 - Bush I
'92 - Bush I
'96 - Dole
'00 - The Shrub
'04 - The Shrub

There's no way McCain can fit that bill, though he is certainly trying. Pat Dobson has already ruled out McCain. Romney is running hard to the right, but his religion and his past positions weaken him substantially. Then there's Guliani - America's Mayor. Guliani will have a tough time getting through the primaries as many of his positions are too liberal.

There are a number of second-tier candidates - Huckabee, Newt Brownback, and Duncan (or is it Hunter?). I just don't see any of them gaining traction. Hagel is an interesting candidate, as he is the only reep to go against the war (he's been against that mess from the start). However, in the process of being proven correct, many party faithful regard Hagel as a Judas. Unless, Iraq blows up into a full-blown regional war, I can't see Hagel gaining traction within his own party.

The Dem side is also interesting. Sure, they have had some pre-ordained candidates - both Mondale and Gore come to mind. But, who remembers the 1992 'seven dwarves' battle that eventually saw Bill Clinton take the crown? Kerry also came out of nowhere. So did Dukakis.

Hillary is trying really hard to put everyone down early so she can win the nomination. However, Obama is for real and Edwards never stopped running after 2004. Hillary's position on Iraq is going to bloody her for some time. However, she can take some solace knowing that Iraq will likely doom McCain, too.

The wild-card is Al Gore. I just read that Gores has the dosh to self-finance himself into the race. The door is potentially open - particularly if Obama, for whatever reason, falters. Gore is in the process of achieving rock-star status. He could conceivably catapult an Oscar win into a strong presidential bid.

There are minor dem candidates. Biden shot his foot off, so he's a non-starter. Richardson, Dodd, Wes Clark, Sharpton, and Kucinich are other possibilities. However, some of the minor players are already dropping out - notably Bayh and Vilsack.

So the race is on; there are six major players, three on each side. I can envision one additional candidate making a run - Brownstone or Newt on the right, Gore on the left. There will probably be a couple of "issues" candidates who stay in. So, some 20+ months before the general election and the field is at once wide open - and limited.